7 Mar

Negotiating Over Dinner?

                                       

Rand-Paul-filibustering

Rand Paul took the rare and risky measure of filibustering in an effort to illicit an answer from the Administration on a critical stray from the Constitution – drone strikes on American citizens in America.  In a show of solidarity with Paul’s historically lengthy (almost 9 hours), and audacious move, twelve Republican Senators went to dinner with President Obama.   Alright, so there may be another term more appropriate than “solidarity” to describe their exit stage left – still, surely they must have wished him well while out dining and pretending to be negotiating spending cuts with Obama.  Or, perhaps they were more inclined to demonstrate solidarity with Obama than with Paul.

What were they really doing?  The media is painting a rosy picture of this momentous dinner and sells it as proof of effort from the President, and evidence of how far he is willing to go to make a deal and be accommodating, or reasonable.  Adulation from the Washington Post is typical, “The GOP’s tax orthodoxy remains too strong, and the fear of conservative primary challenges too fresh, for a bit of outreach to wildly change the odds. But at least the president will have done everything he can, and everyone — including many Republicans — will know it.”

Obama goes to dinner with 12 Republicans and this is going to accomplish the goal of an agreement on real spending cuts? Not a chance.

Lindsey Graham SC
Bob Corker TN
Kelly Ayotte NH
John McCain AZ
Richard Burr NC
Saxby Chambliss GA
Dan Coates IN
Mike Johanns NE
Pat Toomey PA
Tom Coburn OK
Ron Johnson WI
John Hoeven ND,  and Barack Obama, WH,

. . . . all collectively accomplished exactly what?

  1. A crowd does NOT negotiate anything.
  2. A meaningful negotiation is held between two or three, not a baker’s dozen and its entourage.
  3. Over dinner  that baker’s dozen might as well be a throng treating itself to a pointless Party on the taxpayer’s dime.
  4. A dozen Republicans showing up for dinner shows pandering, not reasonableness in negotiating.
  5. A dozen Republicans showing up for dinner gifts the tax-and-spend President the photo op he needs.
  6. A dozen Republicans showing up for dinner lets Obama off the hook and out of the corner he’s in, providing him fodder for more tales he can then tell to the media which is more than willing to applaud.

Does anyone really believe this dinner will lift gridlock and move Obama from his ideological stance? . . . . Well, other than the media? It seems more and more of the public is disbelieving.

Dinners are used for stimulating or promoting familiarity.  These 12 don’t know who Obama is yet? Four years and this bunch is still not clear? Serious and meaningful negotiations are done in a boardroom in private, or in a cave in the hills, but not over a lavish dinner with a parade of limousines and security agent Escalades putting on a very public exhibition of extravagance.

ABC views this particular performance as marking a new approach for Obama.  Really?  How insightful is that? Some hard negotiations are mandatory, not just necessary, to bring spending under control.  We shall not hold breaths for fear of turning blue on the outcome of this new outreach.

About James Raider

A constituent of the vast baby boomer generation with a career which has been fortunate to know the ponderous corporate worlds, as well as the intimately pressurized, and invigorating entrepreneurial domains of high tech and venture capital, I have harvested my share of mistakes meandering through corridors of enterprise from Silicon Valley, to London and endless, colourful, sometimes praetorian points in between. The voyage has provided an abundance of fodder for a pen yielding to an inquisitive keyboard, a foraging mind, and a passionate spirit. Whether political or business or social or economic or personal, is it not all political? It is a privilege to write, and an even greater privilege to be read by anyone, and sometimes with the wind at my back the writing may occasionally be legible. I do not write to invite scorn, nor to invite respect, but if I get really lucky the writing can stimulate thinking. I also write for the very selfish purpose of animating my own processes, and engaging the best of what life offers. Above all, whether biting fire or swatting shadows, I am grateful to be gifted the freedom to write and publish whatever flows down to the keyboard. To all those who enabled this freedom, and to all those standing guard to preserve it, I am indebted.
This entry was posted in Constitution, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, March 7th, 2013 at 4:40 pm
| 880 views

105 Responses to Negotiating Over Dinner?

  1. retire05 says: 101

    @Greg:

    With the great majority of guns in the hands of criminals

    Let’s examine that, shall we, Greggie? A majority is considered, in an election, to be at least 51%. So immediately, your statement indicated that at least 51% of the guns are in the hands of criminals. But you went further; you said a “great” majority. Now, to any rational thinking person, a “great” majority simply indicates greater than 51% and probably above 60%. Either way you slice it, it’s not true.

    My phrase was not introductory, it was the subject of the sentence. There are more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens than in the hands of criminals.

    Now, you can pick apart my ability to use proper King’s English, and you can whine and complain how I run people off, which is debatable. But this is absolutely false:

    One of retire05′s favorite tactics for derailing a discussion is to rephrase and deliberately misstate what other people have said.

    When you use a person’s actual quotes, as I did with you, how does one “deliberately misstate what other people have said.” The problem is that when confronted with actual facts, Greggie, you have no argument and that bothers you because you know, way down deep in your heart, liberals are slim on fact.

    ReplyReply
  2. Greg says: 102

    @retire05, #97:

    Well, to begin with he could not have bought either gun at a gun show without a federal background check.

    Of course not. No one can do that. Correct?

    So tell me then, how are all of the guns that start out in the hands of lawful distributors winding up in the hands of criminals? We’ve ruled out theft; you yourself asserted that theft accounts only for a very low percentage. You don’t like the straw buyer explanation. You deny any inappropriate transfers at gun shows. So, what’s left? What exactly is this point in the chain where so many guns move from lawful hands into the hands of a criminal?

    He got caught being a hypocrite and he’s trying to cover his a$$ with some lame claim that he is going to hand over the gun to the Tucson PD.

    You’ve totally ignored the fact that the timeline of Breitbart’s story is completely bogus. Mark Kelly’s Facebook post was made over a day and a half ahead of anyone on the right having a comment. The post has an automated time stamp. It hasn’t been subsequently edited, because edited Facebook posts are automatically marked as such.

    You might think Kelly’s conclusions are wrong and his intentions were silly—that genuinely is a matter of opinion—but what he posted wasn’t a response to accusations of hypocrisy, because those didn’t come until a day and a half later.

    ReplyReply
  3. Scott in Oklahoma says: 103

    I went to a gun show today in Lawton Oklahoma. Didn’t see any bargains, all but one or maybe two sellers required backround checks. The one or two that didn’t had a very limited selection of gunns for sale, one was liquidating some of his personal collection. Most of the prices were pretty close to retail, some higher.

    ReplyReply
  4. retire05 says: 104

    @Greg:

    So tell me then, how are all of the guns that start out in the hands of lawful distributors winding up in the hands of criminals? We’ve ruled out theft; you yourself asserted that theft accounts only for a very low percentage.

    The FBI, in the survey of over 51,000 imprisoned felons, breaks it down:

    Theft or burglary (by perp) 7.6%
    Drug dealer/off street 15.7%
    Fence/black market 7.6%

    That comes to 30.9% and I think it is safe to say that a drug dealer/off street & fence/black market would also include stolen weapons. I think it’s pretty safe to say that a fence is not dealing in guns he legally purchased.

    Add to that the 40.5% that they claimed were obtained from “family or friend.” That could be straw purchases, theft from the family/friend or simply one gangbanger handing over a weapon to another gang banger. So now we are up to 71.4%. The FBI attibutes to legal sales as only 20.1% and other 8.5%, all figures for first time offenders.

    You don’t like the straw buyer explanation.

    Never said that. Eric Holder facilitated one of the largest cases of “straw buying” in our nations history. And what was that you said about me “misstating” what others say, Greggie?

    You deny any inappropriate transfers at gun shows.

    According the the FBI, gun show sales account for 0.08%, less than one percent.

    So, what’s left? What exactly is this point in the chain where so many guns move from lawful hands into the hands of a criminal?

    . Mark Kelly’s Facebook post was made over a day and a half ahead of anyone on the right having a comment.

    Well, let’s look at that, as well, shall we?

    Mark Kelly made his purchases on March 5th. On his Facebook page, he says that he made those purchases “a couple of days ago.” If we assume a “couple” means two, the earliest he posted that was on March 7th, at day before Breitbart.com said. On his Facebook page, I can find no date/time stamp. Perhaps you can.

    You might think Kelly’s conclusions are wrong and his intentions were silly

    No, I think they were agenda driven. He has political ambitions, and so he’s playing the anti-gun card.

    but what he posted wasn’t a response to accusations of hypocrisy

    Who said what he posted was a response to accusations of hyprocracy?

    I said he was a hypocrite for posting what he did. He is anti-gun, yet he’s buying an AR-15 and a 1911? That’s hypocritical, and yes, he will eventually have to answer for that.

    Now, answer this question: when gun stores don’t put weapons for sale in the cases if they are not ready to be sold, why did he not take the AR-15 with him? Did he decided to modify it with one of those scary looking black plastic grips, perhaps?

    Don’t discount the number of guns brought over the border. Drug cartel members all carry weapons as do the mules, who have no use for them once they are here and so the weapon is given to someone else, or sold

    ReplyReply
  5. GREG
    RETIRE05 WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF ON THE WORSE CONSTANT ATTACKS
    FROM THE TROLLS,
    HE JUST WAS NOT LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT,
    AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO GET IN ALSO, HE GAVE IT TO YOU,
    WHY NOT?
    YOU HAVE AN HABIT OF DEMOTING OTHER COMMENTS, NOT RETIRE 05,
    SO DON’T PUT THE BLAME ON HIM, IF HE DEALS WITH YOU GROUP LIBTARDS
    THOSE WHO TRIED SO HARD TO HAVE HIM BAN BY PUSHING HIM AND INSULTING HIM,
    NO CONSERVATIVES HERE HAD EVER AN INSULT BY RETIRE05,
    TAKE YOUR OWN BLAME FOR WHAT YOU COME WITH,
    NO OTHER ARE PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR COMMENT,
    YOU BRING ARROGANCE AND YOU GET PIN ON IT AND DEBATED, BUT YOU DON’T LIKE IT OF COURSE.
    AND NOBODY IS LEAVING BECAUSE OF RETIRE05,
    WHY SHOULD THEY? HE IS NOT ATTACKING ANYONE,
    ONLY THOSE TROLLS ATTACKING HIM VICIOUSLY

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>